Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< April 27	April 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hennadiy Gufman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable topic. Member of local council is not notable. The Ukrainian Wikipedia is absent (I think because he is not notable there either). Edit.pdf (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Politician not meeting NPOL, rest of mentions are basically things he's done while in government, so routine descriptions of his job. Oaktree b (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the subject does not pass WP:NPOL, but can the nominator explain why, given the existing sources, the subject isn’t a GNG pass? Mccapra (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond describing his political career, he hasn't done anything notable that they talk about. Being influential in Dnipro isn't GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the above discussion. I'll add in (1) fringe candidates and ideas are not automatically notable, (2) which is well settled, (3) he is not notable as an attorney, and (4) he has literally done nothing outside of his local sphere, as it says in the article, making him run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. It's not mentioned at Issues relating to biofuels so there's no reason to redirect. Should that change, happy to restore the history for a redirect. Star Mississippi 01:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biofuelwatch[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

original research (violates WP:NOR), does not meet notability criteria. Few reliable sources available. Because of the non notability in the article, it has been neglected.

Possible redirection to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_relating_to_biofuels DashDashUnderscore (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DashDashUnderscore (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lam (ophthalmologist)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage of Lam in secondary sources is relatively minor. Much of the sources seem to stem from primary sources (i.e. libraries which have published his works) or local newspapers familiar with Lam. Does not fulfill criterion (1), (2), or (4) of WP:AUTHOR, (3) may be possible, though no evidence of widespread coverage in reviews. GuardianH (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A major contributor to the article, @Y69up02, may have a connection to the subject. GuardianH (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person has written books that were published by indie publishers and one won an indie book award. He was once given a few minutes of air time on PBS. None of the sources or books reviews are of the level that we would usually consider to confer notability. Given the number of book titles published yearly (over 300,000 in the US) mere authorship is not enough to establish notability. Publishing by major publishers and reviews in national sources, with a bonus for making a best-seller list, is needed. Lamona (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take 21[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced article about a defunct amateur film festival. As always, every film festival is not automatically entitled to have an article just because its own self-published website formerly offered primary source verification that it existed -- the notability test requires WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about it in media independent of itself to establish its significance. But the only (deadlinked but waybackable) footnote that's ever been added here was an event calendar listing, not analytical coverage about the festival -- and even on a ProQuest search for other sources, I only found the festival's own press releases about itself and a few stray glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things or people, with virtually no substantive coverage that had the festival as its subject to fulfill either GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH.
For added bonus, the article was likely written for at least semi-advertorialized purposes, because until I saw it a few minutes ago it was shot through with dozens of WP:ELNO-violating embedded links to profiles for almost every film named in the article body on an offsite directory or streaming platform, which is not how Wikipedia articles about film festivals are supposed to be written. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE No mentions in media about the festival that I can find, it's been defunct for over a decade now, this was some attempt at PROMO that never worked for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This described someone involved in the event, but it's not sigcov [1] Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Nightmare (Avenged Sevenfold album). Valid ATD Star Mississippi 01:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lost It All[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Outside of a few minor chart placements, which are not in and of themselves an indication of notability, there is no significant coverage of this song. Sources in the article are more about the albums that the song on which it was included. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Doesn't seem that either Nightmare or Diamonds in the Rough mentions the song any more than the other so neither is a better redirect target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSONG. References are all either about album in which the track appears, listings of album contents, or chart listings in minor charts. Only one cite actually discusses this track, and that's in a review of the entire album. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nightmare (Avenged Sevenfold album) - Although it does appear in the reissue album, I think it makes the most sense to redirect to its original release album as an WP:ATD. Suriname0 (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nightmare (Avenged Sevenfold album) per above. // Timothy :: talk 14:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Null.‎. If there is a valid deletion argument to be made, it can be done by any established editor. We have a backlog and this doesn't need seven more days of air. Star Mississippi 01:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meet-or-release contract[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTDICT. With a search on google, there hasnt been any coverage on the law term, thus fails WP:GNG. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close per User talk:Jeffhardyfan08#April 2023, no reason to assume this is a good faith nomination. // Timothy :: talk 14:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red Flag (Jericho)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:NEPISODE; there's no extensive coverage outside of the normal fansite recaps and a single review at IGN ([2]). Article contents is mostly just an extensive plot summary too. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 19:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEPISODE. Qytz (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. // Timothy :: talk 15:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nail Alishov[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches of "Nail Alışov" and "Nail Alishov" did not yield any detailed coverage that would help with WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Best I can find is a squad list mention as an unused sub in Report.az and a quote from him at the bottom of Matc.az. The latter is not significant because there is no meaningful third-party analysis of what Alishov said. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article are database records (ref + el) and BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 01:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Angel (season 3)#Episodes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep Tight (Angel)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show.

Previous REDIRECT was reverted, so bringing it here for discussion. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and near-entirely plot summary, which are both no-goes on Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. // Timothy :: talk 15:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Parks and Recreation (season 5). RD as WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soda Tax (Parks and Recreation)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show.

Previous REDIRECT was reverted, so bringing it here for discussion. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. // Timothy :: talk 15:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Episode lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untouched (Angel)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show.

Previous REDIRECT was reverted, so bringing it here for discussion. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Source in article is an interview and BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Let me know if something is found. // Timothy :: talk 01:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Timothy's reasoning. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Philip K. Dick bibliography. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas and the Higs[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails GNG with sole citation being a minor note in a biography. It's also an unpublished failed attempt at a book whose contents haven't survived beyond a short synopsis, making it highly unlikely to ever achieve proper notability. Content could be placed into authors main article instead. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Philip K. Dick, and merge in the content to the latter page, as the OP noted. I'd say that's the least we can do for this article, as a quick search on this topic only finds a couple sources here, here, here, here, here, but that's it, as most of the results from a "Nicholas and the Higs" Philip K. Dick Google Search don't seem to bring up reputable sources.--Historyday01 (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep per WP:BOOKCRIT #5: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable".~~ I admit there's not much to say about it (there's a little more info here), but this information ought to be on Wikipedia somewhere. Merging to Philip K. Dick doesn't make sense to me; I don't see where the content of this article would fit into the main biography. I wouldn't be opposed to merging into a hypothetical "Lost works of Philip K. Dick", along with A Time for George Stavros and Pilgrim on the Hill, but that's a discussion for the talk page. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The five preceding criteria do not necessarily apply to books excluded by the threshold standards, and do not apply to not-yet-published books". Nicholas and the Higs was unpublished (and never will be), and has no ISBN or catalogue in a national library, therefore Bookcrit #5 is irrelevant. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It's still my opinion that even the unpublished works of an author of PKD's standing should be considered notable, but I see now that the notability guidelines don't exactly back that up. In that case, redirect to Philip K. Dick bibliography, at least for the time being. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sojourner in the earth: If we assume that WP:NBOOK does not apply to an unpublished work, I think we can fall back on WP:GNG. I have described below why I have the opinion this more general guideline is fullfilled and this article should remain, in case you would like to consider that. Daranios (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully this relist will yield more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect at minimum. I am having trouble finding great sources to rescue this, but it is a valid redirect and probably we can find enough to rescue this. I'll ping User:ReaderofthePack and User:Daranios who IIRC both has a good track record digging some interesting sources for this kind of stuff. PS. Sources: self-published sadly, I only get snippet view but it may have something (I see mentions in several pages?); this book, also reliable, seems to have at least a paragraph (but snippet view again...); another book mentioning this (in a footnote or a list? is [3]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those are available on Open Library: To the High Castle is the one I linked to in my comment above; this is the best source I can find. Only Apparently Real includes the book in a complete list of PKD novels, with some info on the history of the manuscript. The snippet you're seeing from The Selected Letters is from the same letter of PKD that is partially quoted in the article. I can provide the full quote if requested, but it doesn't provide a great deal more information. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found mention of it here, in an online magazine calsed "LBV Magazine". Unsure how usable that actually is, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the significant treatment in the listed To the High Castle and a number of other mentions where I don't currently have an overview of significance (and Divine Invasions already in the article), Philip K Dick is Dead, Alas, Philip K. Dick by Andrew M. Butler, and The Book of Lost Books each have a paragraph and a bit on Nicholas and the Higs. That's enough for me to believe notability requirements are fullfilled and a full and referenced article can be written on this topic. While we will never see this story (and therefore indeed WP:BOOKCRIT #5 may not apply), according to those sources the manuscript has been reviewd, and they provide us both with commentary on it, and some influence it had on other works of Philip K. Dick and his career. Daranios (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: About how many lost novels or other works are there of Philip K. Dick? The reason I'm asking is that there does seem to be quite a bit of coverage as a whole about his lost works. I can't help but feel like this could be its own article, with it broken up by time period or genre, depending on how it plays out. I can help compile sources for this but I don't have the free time I once have and this feels like it would be a pretty big project. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are that many lost works, to be honest. Since PKD's death, every scrap of paper that anyone can find with his handwriting on it has been posthumously published. There are only three novels for which no known manuscript exists: Nicholas and the Higs, A Time for George Stavros (recently redirected at AfD) and Pilgrim on the Hill. I don't know how many lost short stories there might be; I know there's one called "Menace, React" which only exists as a fragment, and there may be others. And then, I suppose, some works are lost in the sense that they were never written; The Owl in Daylight, Fawn Look Back. If you've found any good sources on this topic I can help work on it. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried finding them again, but didn't find much. I added what I could to the talk page. I feel like there's at least enough for a section somewhere, at least. I could swear I saw more meaty sources out there, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Philip K. Dick, agreed with OP's decision. CastJared (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01 and CastJared: In case you still think a redirect is the best option in spite of the found secondary source, wouldn't Philip K. Dick bibliography be the closer topic as compared to the Philip K. Dick article itself? Daranios (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Philip K. Dick bibliography would be a better redirect target. Historyday01 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, the redirect target is Philip K. Dick bibliography. Agreed. CastJared (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems ok, I'm not seeing much else about the "treatment for the book". Someone might eventually finish the work or rewrite it or what have you. Now, nothing we can use for GNG found. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows, a lost copy might turn up somewhere. The author's been gone for 40 some years, still a while before the copyright expires anyway. If and when, we can re-create the article then. Oaktree b (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: "nothing we can use for GNG found": But what about the secondary sources which have been found and discussed so far? Daranios (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a redirect. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There's enough here for something, but not a stand alone article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radical, North Carolina[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't know where The Anomebot2 got the coordinates (supposedly from GNIS) that it recently added to this article; but the GNIS reference in the article is dead, and the current GNIS database contains nothing for a Radical in North Carolina. (This may have been one of the minor "locale" entries that have been purged from the database.) There is certainly a Radical Road in the vicinity of the location indicated by the coordinates, but I'm not seeing the place labeled on any maps. References 2 and 3 are just entries in lists, and I'm not finding any substantive coverage elsewhere. Fails WP:GEOLAND, methinks. Deor (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not finding anything for this beyond the post office. Mangoe (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - William S. Powell's 1976 The North Carolina Gazetteer: A Dictionary of Tar Heel Places describes it as "community in n Wilkes County between Chestnut and Herald Mountains". Using newspapers.com I can find some passing mentions of this variety, but its quite clear this is an insignificant place. NGEO states that "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG" and I do not see GNG being met. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it is worth, Radical does appear on the 1913 Rand McNally atlas of North Carolina [4] (found via this article). It also appears on recent NC Department of Transportation maps, albeit along with many other tiny place names we don't have coverage on.[5] Seems clear it was a rural community identified by/with its post office. I also see Wilkes County was named after John Wilkes which even our article calls a radical in the first sentence, apparently as a reference to a political movement of his time, so seems like the source of the name.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- My guess was that it had to do with Radical Republicans of the Reconstruction era. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - State road maps have not proven to be a particularly reliable source, particularly in this case when the map is more about road construction than giving directions. I also looked into the PO business a bit further and found this listing which shows it as a 4th class office, indicating that their wasn't a separate facility and that the office was in someone's store or house or the like. Mangoe (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt the place name exists and was in existence to describe a rural area, but I've not jumped to saying it meets GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astros–Braves rivalry[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are 30 teams in MLB, so naturally each team will face off against the other 29 over time. Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, including going through each set of teams and picking out the times that they met in the postseason. There is no "rivalry" between the Braves and the Astros. If we don't draw a hard line on what constitutes a rivalry and what doesn't, we will have individual pages for each potential matchup. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's very little local or national coverage of this matchup being a significant rivalry. It certainly isn't worth of its own article. Nemov (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state) and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Nemov. Definitely not as much of a rivalry as with the Phillies, Marlins, or even the Dodgers. BilCat (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very little coverage of these teams as “rivals.” The sources present in the article only mention terms like “rivals” or “rivalry” in the title or briefly and show little depth of animosity between the two teams and their fan bases. Frank Anchor 12:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The teams being arguably the most successful teams of their respective leagues in the past half-decade doesn't constitute a rivalry. That said, the primary claim made in the article and its sources is that the rivalry was strong in the '90s when the teams played in the NL West together, and has recently seen something of a resurrection. A rivalry can still be notable and worthy of inclusion if it's dormant (no one would've suggested that the Texas–Texas A&M football rivalry article should've been deleted when Texas A&M left for the SEC). Ultimately, however, those are all moot points. The question is whether there is substantial coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources, and the sources don't really establish it as a notable rivalry, as per Frank Anchor. P1^{(talk / contributions)} 15:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence of a notable rivalry. This article only really says that the Astros and Braves have faced each other in the playoffs, which isn't enough. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Osama bin Laden's house in Khartoum[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I fail to see the notability of this house. While ~~the compound where Bin Laden was killed, 'might' warrant its own article~~ but this one? And while the sources mention the house, they aren’t talking about the 'house'. They don’t discuss it other than in passing, basically that he lived there. The sources write about what he did while he was living there. The house might merit a brass plate or graffiti tag saying “UBL slept here”, but at this time not a Wikipedia article. Note: after looking, the Abbottabad house also doesn’t warrant an article. Both articles are mini biographies, discussing stuff that happened during his lifetime there, but not about the house. Artificial Nagger (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The precise layout was the subject of intensive research before his death on his last house, & some discussion afterwards. Obviously meets GNG, & there's enough to justify its own article. We have 5 in Category:Al-Qaeda safe houses btw. Gets decent views, especially now of course. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Baffled why this would be nominated. As John says, obviously meets GNG and should be swiftly closed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corrie Erickson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not convinced that this meets GNG or the appropriate section of WP:Notability (people) . Rejuvenating pin-ups in military aeroplanes, designing a city's logo, etc is all interesting but I can't see any significant coverage. JohnmgKing (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Minnesota. JohnmgKing (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One source talking about his tattoo art, nothing else. Not seeing GNG here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any coverage which was independent, significant, and reliable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 19:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; sourcing insufficient. Kablammo (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ per criterion G5: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmjoshi12. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chandan Madan (actor)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sources don't show multiple significant roles nor are there any good strong sources focused on Madan. Article was moved by creator from draft space, so AFD. Ravensfire (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Ravensfire (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and salt. Could have been G5'd, since it was created by a sock of Jha09.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Deir ez-Zor ambush[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS one of the many instances of bombings, airstrikes or clashes during the low intensity period of Syrian war. Ecrusized (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Terrorism, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I made it because it was the deadliest attack on Syrian soldiers by ISIS forces in the new insurgency which has been going on for a few years now. The attack remains the deadliest attack on soldiers by ISIS in the desert insurgency, it is definitely notable, also just because it occurred in the low-intensity period of the Syrian war doesn't make it not notable.--Garmin21 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes GNG, sources in article are from Reuters, Guardian, plus a search found [6], [7]. // Timothy :: talk 02:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Unions in the United Kingdom[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of Christian Union student societies at UK universities/colleges, all but two of which are non-notable. The only sources in the article are from UCCF, the umbrella organisation for most Christian Unions in the UK; I can't find any independent reliable sources which would establish notability for this list. Does not aid navigation, since almost none of the groups listed have their own articles (each group listed just links to the university/college at which it is based). Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTCRIT. WJ94 (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Christianity, Lists, and United Kingdom. WJ94 (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously not notable in my opinion. Student societies are unlikely to be notable, lists are therefore even less so. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when the first sentence tells you the list is derived from a single website, it's a pretty big clue the list fails WP:NLIST. Clearly WP:NOTDIR. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merger -- The article claims that its list is derived from one produced by UCCF. That primary list does not appear in the "see also" items in the UCCF article, which instead relies on this articles. The article is trying to reproduce a directory, but there will be no person who will certainly maintain the list, which thus is at risk of getting out of date, whereas UCCF are likely to maintain their own list. I support the work of UCCF financially, but like most student societies individual Christian Unions are inherent NN, with the possible exception of the Oxford and Cambridge ones. As a matter of information, UCCF is the umbrella organisation for University and College CUs, but there are also school CUs, whose umbrella organisation is Scripture Union. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what we would merge into the UCCF article. Including a list of all the UCCF affiliated Christian Unions at the UCCF article would violate WP:NOTDIR just as much as having a separate list would, so I would oppose including this list there. WJ94 (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above deletes. History person 2 (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 14:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Deir ez-Zor attack[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS one of the many instances of bombings, airstrikes or clashes during the low intensity period of Syrian war. Ecrusized (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meletios Kalamaras[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been edited almost entirely by one user that seems to have a very close connection with the subject. There is a notability issue that cannot justify this article. Chiserc (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meletios Kalamaras was a notable eastern orthodox bishop for 32 years.

32 years full of works, writings, publications, international symposia, involvement in the Orthodox Church and its cooperation with other Christian Churches.

He is already dead (11 years ago) and there is no need for advertisment for him any more. The article was created 10 years after his death.

He was well known to the Christian world and his work has been recognised.

An American scholar (Stephen Lloyd-Moffett) has written a book about Meletios Kalamaras' work as a bishop, published in the USA, not in Greece.

I, therefore, cannot see why there is a notability issue for this article.

Let's hear and other views.

Actia Nicopolis (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church are notable. Needs editing to remove reverential prose. Mccapra (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but there needs to be significant changes. I've begun deleting the WP:PUFFERY and other POV content, but it'll likely require a significant amount of revision by multiple editors. Subject passes GNG, and metropolitans in the Greek Orthodox Church are generally considered notable according to WikiProject Christianity non-policy standards. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that it needs a complete editing, writing again the page almost from scratch. The notability may not be an issue, indeed. However, it may be edited again and the lack of WP:Neutral point of view might be an issue finally. Chiserc (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To that end I already warned Actia Nicopolis regarding NPOV policy. As someone of a similar faith who holds similar people in high esteem, I can see how this was a good-faith effort that went extremely awry. If the problems persist, I think we can talk about draftifying or some other remedy (should this AfD fail). ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in reliable book sources. Normal editing removing some of the npov issues have begun, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a metropolitan bishop, he is certainly notable. The Greek WP has an article at least of similar length. The reason for the articel being largely by a single editor may well be because he has translated the Greek article. If there is too much puff in the article, the solution is to edit it out, not to delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a bishop of a recognised church and ergo clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glenique Frank[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E. A very minor "scandal", a non-notable transgender runner causing female finisher #7000 to be ranked female finisher #7001 instead. Fram (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely not a very minor scandal. Im working on the article and adding all the links on reliable, major international sources, which will demonstrate it is not a very minor scandal. Antonio The Major Scandal Martin (queeeee?) 12:39, 28 April, 2023 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NOTNEWS. That some "human interest" story is shared internationally doesn't suddenly make it a major scandal. Nothing of any significance happened, it's just somewhat unusual and fits the current vogue of reporting. Fram (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP1E, and half the sources are unreliable. --Pokelova (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as harassment of a non-notable private individual. I've tagged for speedy deletion. We do not stitch non-RS hit pieces together into "articles" like this. Beyond that there is BLP1E and every other reason why this is utterly unacceptable. The redirect from the deadname to the current name is pure vandalism and I have also put that up for CSD. Absolutely astonishing that an extremely longstanding editor could behave in such an obviously sanctionable manner. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet there is Bruce Jenner as a redirect...Antonio Mythical Martin (queeeee?) 14:50, 28 April, 2023 (UTC)

That's very different. Jenner was famous under her deadname. Frank was not. Our policies on this are very, very clear. We do not use deadnames except when people were notable under that deadname! --DanielRigal (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor news story, WP:BLP1E, poor sources. Not an attack page though, so I have declined the G10. —Kusma (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I am a little disappointed by that but I understand that you have to set a very high bar for this. What about the redirect though? That's got to go, right? DanielRigal (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the current "controversy", the person seems equally notable under both names. More precisely, not notable. But as they are still using the male name to sign up for further marathons, I can imagine an argument for keeping the redirect. I find discussing the redirect rather academic, though, unless we decide to keep this article. —Kusma (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the arguments above, particularly WP:BLP1E. Sources are the Daily Caller (deprecated), the Daily Express (generally considered unreliable), Fox News (no consensus) and NY Post (generally unreliable). Flip Format (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have also tagged as disputed. The article says 'In response, Frank wrote that "I'm not at an advantage since I have very low testosterone levels due to hormone replacement surgery".' and, guess what, that's not what Frank said at all! The source says '"I'm not at an advantage as I have very low testosterone level due to hormone replacement therapy," she wrote in reply to Yamauchi.'. We do not misquote people like that! --DanielRigal (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I commented out some transphobic wording that should never be used in wikivoice. Check the edit history if interested. DanielRigal (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Transphobic? I'm transgender! The only reason I never changed my user page name is, everyone knows me with that name.Antonio The new ms. Jeanette Martin (queeeee?) 15:29, 28 April, 2023 (UTC)

OK. I was not aware of that. Whatever your intentions, I still think that the wording I removed reads as if it was transphobic: use of "claimed",inappropriate and irrelevant mention of surgery. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an attack page and the subject is not notable -TenorTwelve (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One editor labeled this page as "harassment", another calls it "attack". Strongly doubt the page qualifies as either. But not adequately notable. Pete unseth (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is heavily weighted towards the "controversy", the biographical section is piddly, while the scandal section makes up the bulk of the article. It's likely not NPOV when a biography has more about "other stuff the person did" and only a few lines of biographical info. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we at WP:SNOW yet? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge could be merged into a small section about the marathon. Non-notable individual otherwise, finishing 7000th is nowhere near SPORTS or GNG. The "scandal" is the real story here, not the individual it's about. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
or !delete, I'm not fussed however it gets !decided. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Very definition of an attack page ('she caused a sports scandal'...who said this and why?) and the subject was among the top 6,200, not the top 100; this is only a 'controversy' to bored red-tops and really sad gamblers, not any normal person. Salt is for the protection of the BLP subject. Nate • (chatter) 20:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: how about if she keeps getting fame? If it was salted, what would we do then? Also, I didnt mean it as an attack page. I thought the subject would be a good way to keep my WIR work, that was my only intention, as a transgender woman myself. Antonio If you see my Bodyguard, Call me Jeanette! Martin (queeeee?) 21:22, 28 April, 2023 (UTC)

If that were to happen then somebody could request unprotection to make it editable again. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Textbook BLP1E. I also urge any patrolling admins to consider deleting early per WP:SNOW and BLP concerns. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 05:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP1E says it all. As a UK resident and London Marathon enthusiast I had never heard of this "scandal": very low impact. PamD 07:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Clearly a BLP1E and is not notable all. Also per WP:SNOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhardyfan08 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am disappointed to see that a lot of the people here on their comments did not apply one of the oldest of Wikipedia principles, which is to always assume good faith - by saying I wrote the article as a form of harassment, etc. Perhaps those people did not look at my 20 years track record at Wikipedia. I have never written an article to harass anyone. Antonio Tell me About it, Hot Stuff! Martin (queeeee?) 13:04, 30 April, 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that this can not have been pleasant but please understand that we can only judge this by what we see before us. We cannot know what your intentions are. What else were we to assume when we saw this article in the form it came to AfD? What else were we to assume when we saw that (now deleted) redirect? Did you really not understand what this looked like? Anyway, if it makes you feel any better, as the inaccurate quotation has been removed I'll take the disputed tag off. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I know what you can assume-good faith. Antonio Missis Corleone Martin (queeeee?) 22:44, 30 April, 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Spender[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Related to some notable people but not notable herself, only minor acting career. PatGallacher (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If not found notable, redirect to Barry_Humphries#Personal_life. PamD 07:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think she's notable enough for Wikipedia: actress and writer, some example sources: Five page article in House & Garden August 2015, article in Sunday Independent (Dublin) - Sunday 25 September 2005, Daily Mirror - Tuesday 28 February 1989 and Sunday Telegraph August 28, 2005 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It would help if these sources were fully integrated into the article. PatGallacher (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified by Piecesofuk. pburka (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Piecesofuk. Jaireeodell (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Piecesofuk. Why are some editors against pages on women? An Encyclopedia should be inclusive. This actor may not be an A-lister but has appeared in some major films and the article has plenty of references to back that up. Brian R Hunter (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am not convinced that the page should have been renamed. As a notable person, the page title should be her professional name and not her abbreviated name, Lizzie is only used in links relating to her personal life. The BFI page [8] uses Elizabeth Spender. Brian R Hunter (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- fyi, from WP:AFDEQ:
  While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts.
pburka (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Luton Borough Council election[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draft/redirect with zero improvement. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but should have been left in draft until enough WP:SIGCOV could be added to show it passes notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the information appears to come from the published candidate lists by the UK election authorities, which is about as good as it could be. I can accept that the individual candidates are not notable, but given that the information about the election has literally been published, I can't really see how as a whole it can be non-notable. JMWt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the same reasons I said to keep the equivalent page for Wigan also proposed for deletion by @Onel5969; there is value in letting these pages go live slightly ahead of the elections themselves. Moreover, letting these pages be deleted loses the work that people have put in in good faith, knowing that every UK local election in recent years has been given a page. Yes, the policies on general notability and verifiable sources still apply, but a hatnote highlighting the need for more sources or improvements would feel far more proportionate than a deletion or applying redirects (as Onel5969 has done to numerous other equivalent pages for the 2023 UK local elections) given how close we are to the election day now.

Stortford (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- for similar reasons you said. A lot of effort goes into making these and if we are going to start deleting them for the reasons stated in the proposal we are going to have to start deleting thousands of election related articles and possibly even the entire UK Local Elections page. A request for better sources would be far more reasonable. Bentley4 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - neither of the keep !votes is actually based in policy.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that official announcements of candidates in an election are RS that meet the GNG. What's not policy about that? JMWt (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's in-depth or independent about that sourcing? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its the official list of candidates by the UK elections authorities. How is that not in depth or independent? Bentley4 (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's all the information that it is possible to have about that election - except the results, because it hasn't taken place yet. Hard, in my opinion, to get more in depth than all the information from the only official source of it. JMWt (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's not notable. Glad you agree there's not enough in-depth coverage at this point in time. If all the information is not significant coverage, that means it doesn't meet WP:GNG. And to answer the first question, it's not in-depth because it is not in-depth; and it's not independent, because it's published by a related entity. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The election authorities are independent of the candidates and parties. That's how elections tend to work.

If you are saying that we can't take official information from independent election officials as RS then I've a bridge to sell you. And there are a lot of pages on en.wiki that need removing. JMWt (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The election authorities run the election. This article is about the election. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be setting a very high threshold for notability and sourcing here, which I would argue goes beyond the accepted consensus position on what satisfies those policies for UK local elections, with many such pages having been created, reviewed and allowed to stand, with contributions from large numbers of editors. If you are saying that any such election page only sourced by the official sources is neither notable nor reliable, then that is a much larger debate than we should be having here on one specific council's election page for one specific year. I believe this page does conform to the policy on notability and sourcing, so should be allowed to stand as it is. Even if it did not yet reach those thresholds I would still argue that deletion is an over-the-top reaction given the imminence of the election day - you can be certain that within a couple of days of the results being declared they'll be added and sourced here too. If the page has been deleted in the meantime that's just wasted time for whoever then has to reassemble the base material already here. Stortford (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is always the case with local elections in the UK, and most other pages have been allowed to stand in this manner until the election takes place on 4th May. Thanks, Wikieditor019 (talk). 16:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly not WP:TOOSOON as the election is only days away. Took only a few seconds to find some in-depth coverage.[9][10][11][12] Number 5 7 11:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing found above is sufficient to satisfy GNG requirements. Rupples (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP:TOOSOON reasoning no longer applies, now that the election has occurred and there are additional sources covering it. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Tata Steel#Subsidiaries. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tata Tinplate[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be the non-notable subsidiary of a corporate conglomerate. All sources seem to be self-source, stuff generated from press releases, routine business reporting, and listings in business directories. Tagged for notability and citations since 2021. Fails NCORP. Valereee (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per submission. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourced content that can be salvaged into parent Tata Steel#Subsidiaries as an alternative to deletion. Maduant (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to merge. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added material on the company's early history from two books and time permitting will look to source more. Does need improvement but I'm sure independent further sources can be found. The company is under 75% owned by Tata Steel. With the remaining shares publicly traded there's likelihood of investment research reports and analysis on the company.WP:LISTED In fact, there are two reports on the company available for purchase via Research and Markets. One is 30 pages long, the other 50 pages, see here [13] At the prices charged I'm not going to be purchasing either. Nonetheless, they count towards satisfying NCORP. Rupples (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Tata Steel#Subsidiaries as a WP:ATD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greenlight[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. It should likely be deleted as a WP:DICDEF and the disambiguation page Green Light moved here instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Business. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: silly rationale. Maybe the lede is a bit DICDEF-y, but if you read past that, the article is about the process of greenlighting in the film industry, and explains it's role in that context, who usually has the right to do it, etc. small jars tc 12:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is already explained in Filmmaking#Development. The existence of this article is an arbitrary dictionary definition for a term that doesn't require a page of its own. I support the addition of a link to the disambiguation page per WP:DABMENTION. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can argue that the page is made redundant by another article, but it's just false to call it a "dictionary definition." The section you linked isn't even sourced, but I might support a merge, if it could be used to improve the poor state of the article on Filmmaking. small jars tc 13:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a merge happens I believe it should be moved to Greenlighting (filmmaking) and the disambiguation moved here. It's clearly not the main use of the word "greenlight". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of a space makes it verbal. I think it is the most common verbal use of the phrase. small jars tc 14:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a dictionary definition masquerading as an article. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange to call it a "masquerade" when it contains substantial content on a coherent topic backed up by reliable sources. The idea that DICDEF applies seems to have been gleaned from old comments on the talk page about an earlier and more rudimentary revision of the article. small jars tc 14:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the first paragraph of the article is literally a dictionary definition, and the picture of the green traffic light doesn't help either. The following section could be appended to Filmmaking. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just fixed the problems you describe. small jars tc 17:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the section to Filmmaking, the lead can go. Should not stay as-is per WP:DICDEF. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. This is a significant distinct aspect of filmmaking, and the issues identified can be resolved through normal editing of the article in its current place. BD2412 T 20:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Irrespective of other outcomes, I would definitely oppose moving the disambiguation page to this title, since most senses on the page have a space between words. If anything, that page should be moved to Green light. BD2412 T 20:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 15 interwikis including the very deletionist German wikipedia. The term is not self-explanatory, and IMO in the same dict-defy territory like Film screening (i.e. "when a film gets shown on a screen"), though that article is a bit more fleshed out. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Ruwers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not seeing any indication that this player meets either WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG; no significant coverage outside of stats and hiring announcements as would be expected of a popular sport. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, South Africa, and England. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There's quite a lot of coverage of the player in a simple search, although quite a lot of the coverage is routine. There may be some there that would qualify for WP:GNG, but the validity of those sources is questionable. Other coverage may exist offline, but for now weak delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see any reason to keep it based on what is in the article.Skeene88 (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lloyd (rugby union)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable rugby player, has stayed in the sport as a manager and assistant in various roles but I am not seeing any significant/sustained coverage to indicate that he meets WP:GNG (just hiring/leaving notices as part of routine club/team/sport announcements). Primefac (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, England, and Wales. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is some coverage out there, although searching is difficult given the common name he has. I'm surprised that there's not more coverage here as he's a Welsh international, and scored on his only appearance. Perhaps @RodneyParadeWanderer: or @PeeJay: will be able to dig up more. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there’s enough info on him to make a more complete bio, between his time with Bath, Ospreys, and in management. I can work on it shortly. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made significant updates to the profile using sources available online and webarchive. I feel there is enough content to verify notability. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage seems sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. The guy played more than a half-century of matches for the Ospreys, quite a few for Bath, and is even a Welsh international. He's notable. – Pee Jay 20:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. The sourcing now is very different from what it was to start with. This is not an ironclad "keep" AfD outcome, but it would be far easier to have any hypothetical rerun as a fresh discussion instead. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D'Arcy Keating[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It was previously proposed for deletion twice. And that's obvious, because, there's only one source (which isn't in-depth, but rather statistics only). Also, upon Google search, not much comes up other than stats. No real in-depth coverage. Only analytical. Does statistical coverage establish notability? X (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Dolovis article; why am I not surprised at who created an unsourced article on a completely unremarkable player whose career consisted of a handful of seasons in the low minors? Complete failure of the GNG, of course. Ravenswing 09:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing, Is this Dolovis user infamous for creating such baseless pages? If so, then that's surprising how this article has been standing there for 10 years. X (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was ultimately tbanned from new article creation, among other sanctions, but the problem was that he created thousands of such articles. Anyone familiar with XfD/prods knows how much resistance is out there to cleaning up such torrents. Ravenswing 15:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing, I've gone through some of their articles, and have found so many that easily don't fit for mainspace. It'd be so tedious to go and tag each of them, but nonetheless, someone's gotta do it. We can't keep their unfit/bogus articles aflot like this one for 10+ years. X (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I AfDed a bunch in the wake of the ban, but obviously there's so much more to go. Ravenswing 18:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've come up with a couple of sources that discuss him in detail.[14][15] I'm going to see if I can dig more up. Alvaldi (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article meets WP:GNG as per WP:HEY. Flibirigit (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are several sources (in the article and Alvadi's) that provide significant coverage of Keating, so he passes GNG. In fairness to Dolovis, when this article was created 10 years ago, I believe that having playing more than 300 games in the IHL would have met NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Asiimwe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not exactly a contested draftification, but was simply recreated in mainspace after having been draftification, with no improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - delete It appears you messaged the creator about the previous draft move and the guy recreated again in main space, this appears to have happened before. SKennedy157 this is not healthy editing behaviour. You should work on articles in draft space, not recreate them again in main space. Govvy (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IKON Award for Best Actress[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is the award category. Fails GNG, sources exist for the award, but not to support an individual category within the award. No objection to a redirect to iKON Awards. I am also nominating the following related pages:

// Timothy :: talk 05:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, and support a deletion for iKON Awards too; these need sustaining WP:N over a number of years to earn an article here, and aren't notable just for existing and need details about how the nominations and winners are chosen and balloted. Nate • (chatter) 21:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

~~The result was delete‎. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

The above closure was overturned to no consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 May 9. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Hani[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourced with non-notable awards, interviews, brand posts. His business, MHD ACERE, maybe notable but he can't inherit its notability. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Oman. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Forbes Middle East 30 Under 30 listing demonstrates that the subject is of high significance [16]. However, there are only a very few additional reliable, independent sources that are useful, for example: [17], [18]. This story by Entrepreneur, although a contributor post, is still very credible since it was published by the managing editor of the publication [19]. In summary, the subject nearly meets the notability guidelines. More reliable sources would be useful. I believe it may be insightful for readers if it were to remain in the encyclopedia, but any promotional and/or branded information must be removed. Multi7001 (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes publishes hundreds of lists such as Middle East 30 Under 30. Being on such a list doesn't mean he is automatically qualified. Wikipedia requires at least three in-depth articles in reliable sources to prove the notability. US-Verified (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few more reliable, independent sources covering the subject in great detail. However, it seems like it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, which is why I refrained from being either in favor of or against this AfD process. Multi7001 (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As it stands, article fails GNG and BIO, but I think there might be Arabic sources. Ping me if multiple IS RS with SIGCOV are added to article. // Timothy :: talk 08:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last chance, in case Arabic sources are discovered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Arabic references added from reference 16-21 as instructed. There are a plethora of other Arabic sources as he belongs to the royal and political family of Oman(Khonsuhorus (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Routine coverage. We need WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to remind Liz, that you have asked them in June 2022 to dislose paid work and they haven't complied yet. US-Verified (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I already replied in June 2022 that I am not a paid editor. (Khonsuhorus (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to evaluate sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Times of Oman meets general notability guidelines as a reliable, independent source. 109.169.34.46 (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Press releases discussing routine coverage like MHD ACERE signs agreement with Chedi Muscat is not WP:SIGCOV. This AfD is attracting some SPAs now which seems suspicious. US-Verified (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV sources to meet NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katia's Russian Tea Room[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD was 15 years ago . Now closed and not convinced it meets GNG as most sources are local as per WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and California. AllyD (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources, and what's given are trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Devoid of notability and sources. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the sourcing is too trivial. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pittsburgh Pirates home run leaders[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:GNG; there is no reason for the Pittsburgh Pirates to have their own article listing the players in franchise history with the most home runs. We cannot realistically extend this to every other MLB team with every other stat (RBIs, wins, putouts, etc.). Songwaters (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Baseball, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; also delete List of Toronto Blue Jays home run leaders. List of Major League Baseball home run leaders by team would be okay.[20] Clarityfiend (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest adding teams to List of Major League Baseball career home run leaders, then delete this. Reywas92^Talk 13:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Any editor wanting to take suggestion to Merge content from this article to a list?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I mean, there's a story to be told about each team and these stats, just having a list of names doesn't cut it. With no critical discussion around what the numbers mean, they're useless. Delete is fine.

Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Outlook (mobile app)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was merged to Microsoft Outlook way back 2020. No consensus to restore. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Microsoft Outlook as before. Aintabli (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The original merge was without consensus. It’s a completely different program from the desktop app with separate history. Just because it has the same name doesn’t mean it’s the same thing. It’s like merging Sonic the Hedgehog (1991) with Sonic the Hedgehog (2006) --MSMST1543 (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MSMST1543. Its established and notable history as a separate app was decimated by the merge argument that it is one and the same with the desktop software of the same name, when it is not. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For such reason, it is an acceptable fork per WP:OKFORK. CastJared (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what you mean by "such reason"? Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such article splitting. CastJared (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Was there an original discussion about making a redirect here? It's not clear to me what consensus is being circumvented, but I see that the page has been moved a few times, so maybe I'm missing an old AfD or talk page discussion? As is right now this seems like a procedural close; I don't understand why this has been brought to AfD. There's no arguments being made about notability here and as far as I can see this isn't a CSD G4 situation or similar. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was at Talk:Microsoft Outlook/Archive 1#Merger proposal. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Source lines of code. History is thereunder for selective merge. Star Mississippi 01:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Code Count[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed for deletion as Non-notable software. No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. Tagged for notability for a decade. PROD was declined due to a prior REFUND at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 81#Unified Code Count (UCC), but no party has done anything to address the lack of sourcing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge extremely selectively to Source lines of code. This was important work and is still in use by the US Department of Defense. However there is almost no independent material available for a separate article. As a note about the earlier days of Wikipedia, one of the papers on the project reports:

A Wikipedia® [6] page was set up for the UCC as a structured software environment to record and present project information to the software community. This wiki is periodically updated by student teams at USC.

StarryGrandma (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"periodically updated" in this case appears to have only lasted until 2011. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 05:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non State Actors Panel of Barbados[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article sourced only to primary sources. My own search was unable to find any significant coverage that would establish notability. Whpq (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Barbados. Whpq (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only primary sourced, no evidence of notability. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note prior AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non State Actors (NSA) Panel of Barbados (closed as no consensus due to zero participation). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was unable to find anything that wasn't just a post on social media or a primary source. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wealth of Scarsdale[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious POV fork created after discussions about including this content at Scarsdale, New York went against the creating user. MrOllie (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, hard to see how it can be a fork if the content is NOT now at Scarsdale. Whether it's encyclopedic is a different question. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:POVFORK: In contrast POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with policy: all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. MrOllie (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant POVFORK, and an unusual one at that. Any content here could be included at Scarsdale, New York if consensus was built, and all of it likely breaches undue coverage. The affluence of Scarsdale is not notable independent of Scarsdale itself any more than it would be for say, Atherton, California. The only "Wealth of X" page we seem to have is Wealth of Donald Trump, where it's clear that the particular topic is independently notable. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2022 United States Senate election in Georgia#Libertarian primary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Oliver[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Notability The individual currently lacks sufficient personal notability.

While they did receive some national coverage, this coverage almost entirely focuses on the fact that he may have been a spoiler that forced a potentially-consequential U.S. Senate election into a runoff. This indicates a circumstance where an individual is only widely notable in relation to a single event. In those cases, it is Wikipedia's general policy to have an article on the event, but not have a separate article on the individual themselves.

It is my request/suggestion that we

Turn the Chase Oliver space into a redirect to the ~~2020 United States Senate election in Georgia~~ 2022 United States Senate election in Georgia

and

Draftify the content (move to the draft space). It is possible that in the coming year, as he runs for president, he may garner note. Heck, perhaps might even be his party's national standard-bearer. Therefore, it makes sense to keep this content in the draft space for a period of time to make it it easily-available if there is a rationale to re-create it as an article, as well as to allow people to improve the draft's coverage of the individual before that time comes if they so desire. SecretName101 (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Libertarianism, Politics, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). SecretName101 (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: we have to be vigilant to curb the creation of articles on individuals with presidential candidacies that have not attained sufficient notability to justify and article. These sort of articles get created every election. SecretName101 (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect: Still WP:BLP1E for his role in the 2022 election. If his prez run gains prominence for whatever reason, we can re-assess at that point, but I don't see why we have to live-or-die by the will of a sockpuppet. Curbon7 (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring the redirect maintains the page history, so no need for draftify in such a case. Curbon7 (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7 good catch/point. That's fair SecretName101 (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Georgia#Libertarian primary (as it was originally). A minor political figure who doesn't meet WP:NPOL or have significant coverage outside of a single event, the 2022 Georgia Senate race. WP:TOOSOON on US presidential candidacy; announcing you're running is not notable in itself and the coverage so far is WP:ROUTINE. FYI @SecretName101:, I think you may have meant "2022" and not "2020" above; Oliver appears to have run in a House race in 2020 but was not involved in the Senate race. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylnuge Will fix the 2020/2022 error SecretName101 (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Georgia#Libertarian primary. Sourcing does not seem sufficient to pass WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Republican National Convention[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should be deleted or draftified. WP:Toosoon SecretName101 (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. SecretName101 (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a clear cut WP:TOOSOON --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obviously WP:TOOSOON. Sal2100 (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. The Republicans haven't decided on location yet. — Maile (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66 I wouldn't say that site selection is cutoff point before which an article cannot be created, as we started articles for 2024 conventions before their locations were selected. However, now is simply not he time for a 2028 RNC article as there is nothing more than early speculation as to the location with miniscule coverage (without any actual major action towards bidding, or even the initiation of a bidding process), and the 2024 conventions are still more than a year away from happening themselves. Also, in retrospect, the 2024 convention articles were published at least maybe half a year too early (my bad). Should have waited until formal bidding was underway to move them out of the draft space so they'd have actual meat to their content. SecretName101 (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, this is a clear-cut WP:TOOSOON case.TH1980 (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON is an essay and does not provide grounds for deletion. WP:CHRYSTAL, however, is policy and does provide grounds for deletion: while this is a certain future event, it is lacking in SIGCOV RS. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Majeed[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely attempt at promo, sourcing is a mix of press releases and websites of dubious notability. I can't find any sourcing about him in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Medicine, India, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Medicine, India, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators.Hkkingg (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP He is award winning pharmacist, author and patent holder with many pharmaceutical books. He has 8000 citations according to this so he meets WP:PROF. Hkkingg (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC) — Hkkingg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Additional info: He is winner of Ellis Island Medal of Honor, so that means he also meets WP:ANYBIO

Along with his company he has hundreds of patents. I found 171 patents to his name at https://ppubs.uspto.gov/ and his company has over 400. These articles here 1, 2 verify the use of patents in actual products. Hkkingg (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Hkkingg is the creator of the article itself. 202.164.137.17 (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mere existence of patents does not guarantee notability, just like any other type of publication, and those articles bear all the markings of thinly-churned press releases, not journalism. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing but promo. There is nothing to claim towards notability. Agree with the nominator that sources are mix of press releases and some black hat SEO. Fails GNG. 202.164.137.17 (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC) — 202.164.137.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Dear IP editor with no other edits, in this case the sources can be ignored per WP:ANYBIO and WP:PROF. Maybe you are new and not familiar with these policies, so you should not place a vote until you have more experience. The policy states:
"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Hkkingg (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the experience is decided by the age of account and edit count, you should never put a vote. You joined 13 days ago and had made only less than 70 edits before marking your vote. It seems that you are already aware of certain wikipedia policies which are not even known to moderate experienced users. This is strange. You do not look like a new user to me. 202.164.137.17 (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even for WP:PROF notability, we require reliable sources; we merely don't require them to have the depth of coverage in individual sources that would be required for WP:GNG notability. Sources that are "mix of press releases and some black hat SEO", if that characterization is accurate, are unreliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein I request that you review this again and reconsider your position.

1- Because Ellis Island Medal of Honor has a wiki page, we can consider it to be a reliable award and meeting WP:ANYBIO, plus this is not the only award that he won.

2- Please tell me which specific citations are press releases or black hat SEO. They all look like legit publications to me. Let's look at a few in more detail:

- The Economic Times India is one of the major publications from India and has a Wikipedia page here. Almost 13,000 articles on Wikipedia have used this site as a citation.

- Nutraceutical Business Review looks like a legit publication in the field of Nutraceuticals

- Indian TV News looks like a legit Indian publication with a Wikipedia page here. 2300+ articles on wikipedia have used this as a citation. According to their About page they have a #1 ranking TV station. Are you saying that this Large TV Station is selling blackhat SEO articles??? what proof do you have???

- NuFFooDS Spectrum: According to their about page: "NuFFooDS Spectrum India's first magazine catering to the Nutraceuticals, Nutritionals, Fuctional Foods and Dietary Supplements sector."

- HAPPI Magazine : a publication in existence for more than 50 years according to their ABOUT page and has 30,000 subscribers.

- WholeFoods Magazine : A publication in business for 39 years (since 1984). It is the longest-tenured media outlet of its kind in the natural products industry. Check their ABOUT PAGE. Majeed has 2 articles on this. Check Article 1 and Article 2.

If any of these are are press releases they must say "Press Release" on them and to proof they are SEO and black hat, you must provide some evidence that they are selling articles, such as a Fiverr link.

3- The guy has almost 8000 academic citations. I found at least 11 books written by him and 170 patents. He clearly can be considered an academic and passes WP:PROF. Hkkingg (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ellis Island Medal of Honour is given by Ellis Island Honors Society. It is not a well-known and significant award so he fails WP:ANYBIO. Economic Times is another publication by Times of India. Per WP:TOI, The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. You have provided no sources that help to meet WP:GNG. 202.164.137.17 (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, churned press releases do not always label themselves as such. XOR'easter (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter and IP Editor: I have to say that I am sure once you vote a certain way you would argue all you can to not admit that you were wrong. This is very obvious when you ignore the big fact that the guy has 8000 citations and have not provided a rebuttal for my #3 argument. According to WP:PROF he would qualify, which states:
a. The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.

Hkkingg (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a pharmacist and fringe-medicine practitioner, he is not an academic, so there is obviously no pass of WP:PROF. Instead we have to look for WP:GNG notability. The book source Stepping Out of the Brain Drain and newspaper source "Four Indian-Americans to receive Ellis Medal" both appear to be brief mentions, not enough depth for GNG. All the rest are unreliable spam. So we don't have the in-depth, reliable, independent sourcing required for GNG and we don't have notability that way either. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Please note per WP:PROF " However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements. Conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not need to be notable academics to warrant an article." He has 8000 citations, 170 patents in academia, author of 11 books and many articles and this cannot be ignored. Also please check my explanation of sources above and state your reason for calling them SEO and blackat spam. You have not provided any valid reason why you think they are spammy sites and my research shows that there are several reliable sites. Hkkingg (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF would apply if he worked in real medicine. Working in Ayurveda is ... not that. We would need top-quality sources that explicitly contextualize the relation between his work and the mainstream, which we don't have. WP:PROF is inapplicable and beside the point. XOR'easter (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn for fringe-medicine purveyors. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Hkking. Based on his almost 8000 academic citations, he meets WP:PROF. The guidelines state this specifically.Pershkoviski (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See [21]. This user has been warned by an admin for making votes at multiple venues within a short span of time. 202.164.137.17 (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines don't state that specifically; WP:PROF provides no exact numbers that have to be surpassed, for the very good reason that no such criterion can actually be formulated. Raw citation counts are simply not meaningful without a comparison to the rest of the field, some understanding of how much an individual author contributed to papers with many authors, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is coming from an IP voter with very little edits. His vote and whatever he says should not be given much value. Hkkingg (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. We see others with very few citations being listed... 49.206.255.210 (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP voter, did you mean to place a KEEP vote? if so, please put a bold KEEP, in the front of your statement. Hkkingg (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's very well published and the recipient of a prestigious international award.

AtFirstLight (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have dug through some recent AFD's and found this discussion, where several editors including @Outdoorsjim, @Elemimele and @Oblivy agreed that someone with around 1000 academic citations meets the notability guidelines. In this case the subject has around 8000 academic citations.

To the closing admin: please extend this AFD for another week, so we can get some more votes in. Hkkingg (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment I suggest you are misreading my comment. The subject of that article had received WP:SIRS media coverage. I did not say or imply that having 1000 citations made the person notable.Oblivy (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to waste a lot of time trying to apply NPROF to someone selling books on turmeric as a cure-all as, from the little I've gleaned about it, it's pseudoscience. On the other hand, his books seem to sell a darned sight better than a lot of people we've accepted as notable authors, so we may be obliged to keep the article based on his being an author. It is not our job to judge whether his books are clap-trap, only whether they're notable clap-trap. But we are entitled to remove anything that looks like promotion from the article about him. Beware of keep; it may not be the result you want; Wikipedia articles are obliged to treat a person and their work fairly, but not necessarily portray either in a positive light. Elemimele (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. As the creator of the article I have not included any promotional language. If you do see anything promotional, please go ahead and state it or you are welcome to edit the article yourself. If promotional language is an issue, it should not be used as a reason to decline a notable subject, but rather someone should fix it or just post a tag that it sounds promotional. Hkkingg (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This is not about one book selling turmeric. I took the time to do some research on the contribution and the amount of scientific data collected and the validity of it. The term used 'pseudoscience' does not fit in here. 49.206.255.210 (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC) — 49.206.255.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I suggest you look at [22] and [23] as examples of the kind of resistance turmeric/curcumin health claims face on Wikipedia. There is an active community of editors who patrol for fringe or pseudoscience issues, with a goal to avoid having Wikipedia be a source of medical misinformation. Turmeric is definitely on the radar screen. If research supporting turmeric as a therapy is discussed on Wikipedia, it's likely (at best) to need counterbalance with criticism from medical-science sources. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just reality. Oblivy (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed your suggested links. These discussions are related to "Turmeric" being a valid therapy or not and it would only apply to a page's content when there is an unsupported content. In this case, the page itself is not about Turmeric, but about a doctor who is an expert in Turmeric related subjects and has written more than one book about it. It is also not the only subject that he has covered. He has books on other subjects as well. In any case, there is no statement in this page that is claiming any benefits of "Turmeric," so even though some editors may have resistance against the subject of Turmeric, their bias should not apply to the this deletion voting, and this consider the academic citations and his books as part of their decision.Please also check WP:AUTHOR. Subject also meets criterion 1 because of many academic citations and meets criterion 3, because his patents are being used in several live products such as Forslean, Boswellin, Blackpepper etc..49.206.255.210 (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You objected to the use of the term 'pseudoscience', and that term and 'fringe' are used elsewhere in the discussion to justify a heightened standard for notability. Whether you call it bias or something else is up to you but there's a larger context. Oblivy (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Basic Latin (Unicode block). Star Mississippi 01:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Basic Latin characters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure there's a good reason for this article to exist. We already have Basic Latin (Unicode block) which has a more complete list. Given this encyclopedia is intended for English readers, we generally only put non-English names of things on the article about that thing. That's also where we put interwiki links to articles about that thing in different language. So normally I would have removed the German, French, Spanish, and Latin columns from the tables in this article, but that would leave it as 100% redundant to the other article. So perhaps it's better to delete or redirect there. -- Beland (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Computing. Beland (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basic Latin (Unicode block) as a duplicate article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basic Latin (Unicode block). This article basically has full WP:OVERLAP with that one, except the unexplained blue highlighted rows, which are characters that aren't basic Latin. It's not entirely clear to me what the author intended by these lists or why the languages listed were chosen. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move: The intent of this article is to present the common names and pronunciation of the printable Basic Latin characters in English and four other languages. The inclusion of Latin and the three other languages are there to illustrate the evolution of the "Latin characters". Basic Latin (Unicode block) does not include the common names and pronunciation. Perhaps this article needs a better name to emphasize the common names and pronunciation such as the List of common names and pronunciation of Basic Latin characters. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 23:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added documentation to this article to explain the evolution of the Latin alphabet from Classical Latin through its integration into modern languages and its codification in the Basic Latin Unicode block. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 15:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect I agree with the above statements. History person 2 (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, sources have been found. (non-admin closure)‎ Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Brown (defensive tackle)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable athlete. No significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV. Willing to reconsider if coverage is made available so please ping me. Frank Anchor 15:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep per sources added by Alvaldi. Frank Anchor 18:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never made it past a practice squad so never had an NFL career. ArcAngel (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per source improvements. ArcAngel (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG with sources from his college career. Found this on Newspapers.com [24], then couple of articles in the Los Angeles Times covering him, Brown Tests Well but Aims Higher, Brown’s Working His Way Back In and one from the Orange County Register. @Frank Anchor:@ArcAngel:, what's your take on them? Alvaldi (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources found by Alvaldi. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alvaldi's sources. Admittedly they are a little light individually. But the LA Times coverage counts as one source for GNG purposes and put these two articles together, not to mention additional minor coverage from the LA Times I found on newspapers.com and the LA Times seems to have given him significant coverage. So that is 2 sources with significant coverage plus what I would call intermediate coverage from the Orange County Register, and I think he just clears the GNG bar. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Aylsworth[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsure of notability, does the president of the SMPTE give notability? Rest seems to be standard business positions in the film industry. Oaktree b (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, Film, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :First female president of SMPTE. Lifetime achievement Emmy. She really was a key player in DCI. The first two alone should make her notable, IMO. Hondo77 (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO#1. A Lifetime Achievement Emmy is a "well-known and significant award".[25]. pburka (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Barbuda Council election[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:EVENT. it's all fading away^talk 00:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antigua and Barbuda-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Extremely close paraphrasing of this news article, and excessive quotations, though the topic could be notable. Curbon7 (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it passes NEVENTS as an event with lasting effects over a wide geographic scope, the entire island of Barbuda. It is the equivalent of a statewide election in the U.S. or a Scottish parliamentary election. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Presidentman. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. But @Keepcalmail: I caution you against restoring this without addressing sourcing Star Mississippi 01:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrat Khalid[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears very PROMO. The entity he founded could perhaps be notable, this individual isn't. I find no articles about him that aren't PR pieces. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an a page on ICANNWiki for him, he is mentioned on the Tedx site, The articles on G20, Society Society for International Development , Wellfound, Crunchbase don't look like PR pieces, and his he is verified on social networks 169.63.181.63 (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are promotional biographies of him. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Solutions and Society for International Development don't offer promotional biographies Keepcalmail (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is also mentioned in a article on aljazeera and devex, they never post promotional articles. 169.63.181.63 (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

169...63: The page at ICANNWiki (which is, yes, a wiki) was created and primarily edited by a user named NasratKhalid. Blurbs for speaking engagements are notoriously fluffy, generally provided by the speaker themselves. The G20 sources used don't do much to establish notability, as one is an article he submitted to the Global Solutions Initiative. Our article currently says, He has established four organizations, including ITRCA,[6] and has been recognized by the G20, where the ref [6] is the aforementioned wiki article he apparently wrote himself, the four organisations he's said to have established are unnamed and apparently non-notable, and the "recognized" bit is unsupported by any source. It's not even clear what form this recognition is supposed to have taken.

The current last sentence is His passion for technology and commitment to serving his country and fellow Afghans have made him a respected figure in the international development community. This is not only unsourced but pure promo blather.

Apparently he wrote a chapter in a book, Securitizing Youth. Haven't found any reviews for that work, though.

The only thing that does anything for me is the Rice award (which, I must admit, was not well-known to me before this). Unfortunately, I can't find that anybody (except him and SID) has written about him winning the award, so I can't see how significant it is. And that's about all I've found, that's not really about Aseel. For that reason, I would say delete, as I don't see much that can be merged to Aseel (website). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 08:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What improvements can be done so that it doesn't look PROMO?? Keepcalmail (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a lot of changes, now it doesn't appear promotional, added proper headings with proper citations from reliable sources. Keepcalmail (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article bout them in the New York Times, Le Monde or other reputable newspaper is what's needed for non-notable individuals to become notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aseel (website). Khalid does not appear notable other than as the founder of this website. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me move to to my drafts, before it gets deleted? Keepcalmail (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Hololive Production#Hololive Indonesia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kobo Kanaeru[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A KYM entry does not a Wikipedia article warrant. WP:BEFORE returns nothing of any substance from reliable, independent sources. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find sources with the exception of this suspicious-looking Yahoo News article. Given the author is 'MrSun' and the publisher is Yahoo News this might not be the most reliable source. I think Kanaeru could be notable in the future though. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BEFORE. Azuredivay (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and BEFORE. // Timothy :: talk 09:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hololive Production#Hololive Indonesia as an alternative to deletion – subject works under said agency and is listed there. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, let's see here...we've got this Duniagames source, and then this, and the "sus" Yahoo source Sungodtemple provided above. None of these sources convinces me of passing GNG, so Redirect to Hololive Production#Hololive Indonesia per KN2731. Oh, and there's some passing mentions of her in other sources! Tails Wx 00:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Cultural impact of Shakira. Star Mississippi 01:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion of Shakira[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

falls under WP:FANCRUFT & WP:REDUNDANTFORK and fails to meet notability requirements per WP:GNG & WP:NOPAGE Everm4e (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Popular culture, and Latin America. Everm4e (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cultural impact of Shakira. Sources used don't seem to support the stand-alone notability here, but there's no need to hard delete, redirect will be ok, and some stuff may be salvageable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there exists no definitive source that explicitly and categorically attributes any particular fashion trends to Shakira. Nonetheless, the singer has adorned herself with various clothing that has garnered attention and commentary. Nevertheless, there exists no evidence to suggest that Shakira was the progenitor of any particular fashion trend. Thus, the current article would only serve as a mere inventory of clothing donned by the artist, which lacks in significance. Best – jona ✉ 14:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only properly sourced material to Cultural impact of Shakira per above. // Timothy :: talk 09:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fashion and cultural impact are two different things, and I am concerned with the proposed merger that it will cause most of the fashion content to get cut. As far as I am aware, nobody needs to be the progenitor of a particular fashion trend for it to be notable they wore those clothes. This article is clearly based off of Fashion of Madonna which is separate from Cultural Impact of Madonna and I don't think there's a solid argument for why Shakira should be any different, especially because the Cultural Impact of Shakira article is already very long without the extra content. In my personal opinion, what this article really needs is someone who is knowledgeable in fashion and fluent in Spanish to analyze whether or not this is notable. And it needs to be copyedited.Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 05:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant WP:FANCRUFT. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Footwear News: Colombian singer Shakira has had an immeasurable impact on music and fashion globally.

Women's Wear Daily: While Shakira is known for her musical versatility, she’s been making a statement with her fashion for decades.

Vogue France: Shakira's decades old formula to her signature style

Remezcla: Casio’s watch sales have increased since the release of Shakira’s song

British Vogue: Shakira breaks down 19 looks from 2000 to now

NBC: ‘Shakira, Shakira' Exhibit to Open at GRAMMY Museum in March 2023. "When it comes to Shakira’s on-stage style, she is timelessly consistent. Through the decades, she has energetically performed in outfits that hug her silhouette and expose her midriff. The "She-Wolf" has always remained loyal to her low-waist skirts and bottoms."

These are just sources in English. I'm not seeing any solid arguments for why this is WP:FANCRUFT, and as the article on FANCRUFT itself says, calling something FANCRUFT "is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on existing Wikipedia policies." Like, is the Grammy museum fancruft? Is Vogue fan cruft? Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 17:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cultural impact of Shakira. This is about style, style is an aspect of culture. Lamona (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.